View report page

45
appoint a Chief Inspector. Mr. Foot brought the matter to a climax
by presenting a very carefully thought out memorandum on the
subject, in which he pointed this out. Very wisely, in my opinion,
the Committee adopted the latter alternative, and sent up to the
Vestry the following report, in every line of which I concur.
"Your Committee have considered with care the entire subject
involved in the report of Dr. Young, the Assistant
Medical Officer to the London County Council, which
suggests that the existing staff of the Sanitary Department
is insufficient.
The opinion of the Committee is that the existing staff is not
as effective as it might be, owing to the present absence of
organised control by a Departmental Officer directly
responsible to the Sanitary Committee.
It must be borne in mind that the staff of the Sanitary
Department has rapidly increased in numbers during the
past few years. Ten years ago there were only two
Nuisance Inspectors, while at the present time the staff
under the control of the Sanitary Committee comprises
eighteen persons exclusive of the Medical Officer, these
are:—
Five Sanitary Inspectors.
Sanitary Department Clerk.
Disinfecting Engineer.
Two Disinfecting Assistants.
Seven Dust Pail Men.
Mortuary Keeper.
Urinal Flusher.
The Sanitary Committee has in time past shown great
reluctance to delegate any portion of its powers of control
to an officer, and preferred to retain the direct supervision
of the department in its own hands. Until the year 1888
the Inspectors reported to, and took their instructions direct
from, the Committee. It was repeatedly proposed that the
Medical Officer of Health should undertake the supervision
of the Inspectors, but it was not until after the inquiry